Re: [earlywarning] [CAP] Definition of Warning Categories

["Hannes Tschofenig" <[e-mail]>]

I should provide a bit more feedback about the background to my question. 

If you only set the value in the category field for the purpose of human
consumption then there is not really an interoperability issue.

Now, with the work on http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rosen-sipping-cap-03
we wanted to define an event package for SIP that allows you to "subscribe"
to certain type of events: you might indicate something like location and
the type of events you are interested in. 

Now, the semantic of the category field suddently matters. With the
individuals-to-citizen emergency services we tried to come up with a
description of the emergency services categories, see RFC 5031. 

Ciao
Hannes
 
>-----Original Message-----
>From: [e-mail] 
>[mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of 
>Elizabeth F. Klute
>Sent: 12 July, 2009 20:28
>To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>Subject: Re: [CAP] Definition of Warning Categories
>
>Thanks Art,
>
>I was struggeling on how to answer but could not have done it better!
>Elizabeth Klute, Director Disaster Management
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: [e-mail] 
><[e-mail]>
>To: [e-mail] <[e-mail]>; 
>[e-mail] <[e-mail]>
>Sent: Sun Jul 12 11:51:43 2009
>Subject: Re: [CAP] Definition of Warning Categories
>
>On Jul 12, 2009, at 7/12/09 3:58 AM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
>> I was wondering whether there is somewhere a more verbose / more 
>> complete description of the semantic of the individual values.
>
>No, and that's deliberate.  Considering the high levels of 
>uncertainty that so often surround emergent events, the CAP 
>designers (first in the CAP Working Group and later within 
>OASIS) struggled to balance completeness against specificity.  
>There was also a concern that we could get bogged down in 
>trying to perfect the taxonomies and wind up with no standard at all.
>
>So the definitions were deliberately left somewhat open-ended 
>and contextual... some would go so far as to say "vague" and 
>I, for one, wouldn't argue.
>
>- Art
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>This list is for public discussion of the Common Alerting 
>Protocol.  This list is NOT part of the formal record of the 
>OASIS Emergency Management TC.  Comments for the OASIS record 
>should be posted using the form at 
>http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/comments/form.php?wg_abbre
>v=emergency
>CAP-list mailing list
>[e-mail]
>http://lists.incident.com/mailman/listinfo/cap-list
>
>This list is not for announcements, advertising or advocacy of 
>any particular program or product other than the CAP itself.
>_______________________________________________
>This list is for public discussion of the Common Alerting 
>Protocol.  This list is NOT part of the formal record of the 
>OASIS Emergency Management TC.  Comments for the OASIS record 
>should be posted using the form at 
>http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/comments/form.php?wg_abbre
>v=emergency
>CAP-list mailing list
>[e-mail]
>http://lists.incident.com/mailman/listinfo/cap-list
>
>This list is not for announcements, advertising or advocacy of 
>any particular program or product other than the CAP itself.
>